9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further Corporate Debtor specifically admits in para 3 that the project and the works remain incomplete but not denied or raised any demure regarding the factum of the payment made on 12.2.2018. Is there any pre-existing dispute? - HELD THAT:- It is observed that Corporate Debtor nowhere in its reply ever mentioned about the defect in quality of goods or any other dispute regarding the same to the Operational Creditor. Application admitted - moratorium declared. - CP-IB NO. 688 (ND) OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 3-9-2019 - R. VARADHARAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND K.K. VOHRA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Sonal Anand and Aayush Sai, Adv. for the Petitioner. Anshuman Gupta, Adv. for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This is a petition filed by M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnal work and the boundary wall work and subsequent to it, the Operational Creditor raised the bill dated 30.03.2012 of ₹ 25,48,262/- for the work completed. h. On 9.07.2012, the bill dated 30.03.2012 was scrutinized by the Corporate Debtor in detail and was sent back after making numerous changes in the same. i. On 7.11.2012, the bill was scrutinized by the engineers employed by the Corporate Debtor company and the same was approved for a sum of ₹ 19,02,527/- and in lieu of the same, a certificate was also issued by N+B design studio, who were the Architects employed by the Corporate Debtor Company, with respect to the site. j. On 11.03.2013, the principal architect employed by the Corporate Debtor by name of Nigul Bakshi is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perational Creditor was not satisfactory. b. It is submitted by Corporate Debtor that this present application is filed by the Operational Creditor after approximately 5 years from the date when the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged its liability and hence this present application filed under section 9 of IBC, 2016 is time-barred as per the interpretation of Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. c. It is further submitted that mere fact that the Corporate Debtor has made a payment of ₹ 1,00,000 on 12.2.2018 does not bring the present application within the purview of the Limitation Act because its limitation for filing this present application shall be computed from the date on which the Corporate Debtor has admitted or ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one week from the date of this order. As a consequence of the application being admitted in terms of Section 9(5) of the Code, the moratorium as envisaged under the provisions of Section 14(1) and as extracted hereunder shall follow in relation to the Respondent: a. The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the respondent including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; b. Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the respondent any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; c. Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the respondent in respect of its pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
